New Delhi: “I think, therefore, I am,” are perhaps the most famous words uttered in western philosophy. In 5 words, it summed up what makes us—the homo sapiens—different from (and superior to) other species. The statement also doffs its hat to the thinking human; one who contemplates on their state of being, questions things, seeks to differentiate between the good and the bad and, ultimately, prolong its own survival.
Journalism is the closest we have to something we could call as the society’s collective consciousness and conscience. Even before democracy became the preferred form of governance, there were poets, writers, and thinkers advocating the rights of men, fighting against injustices, and denouncing tyranny. But democracy strengthened the hand of news media and established it as one of its key pillars.
The notion of ‘unbiased’ news emerged much later in the life of journalism, once it had had the luxury of rising above the struggles of day-to-day existence and readers became diverse. Otherwise, the ‘scribe’ was always peddling a story they cared about. Even today, the news pages of newspapers are meant to report only news. For example, careful editors tell their reporters not to write, “the demonstration was marred by violence…” and instead choose the neutral “marked by”. Opinions are confined to the opinion pages and editorials.
To Endorse or Not to Endorse?
With two influentials newspapers in the US—The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times—deciding not to endorse a presidential candidate, a massive debate has been kicked off within the newsrooms and American living rooms. The question being asked is, should or should not a newspaper endorse a candidate? Is it their job at all?
Let’s get this out of the way first: the endorsement debate is more relevant to newspapers than television news channels. Traditionally, most of the newspapers in the US have endorsed presidential candidates—including the Washington Post and the LA Times. Among the major newspapers, the Wall Street Journal (considered a conservative publication) stopped endorsing candidates in 1928, but it does weigh in on their respective merits and demerits. The New York Times announced in August this year that it will no longer endorse local candidates (senators, governors, mayors etc.), but will continue to endorse in presidential elections like it has done for 160 years now.
Television news channels and the myriad vlogs on YouTube are already aligned on the one or the other side. Of the three biggest, Fox is clearly the voice of conservative voters (ergo, Republicans/Trump) while CNN and MSNBC are liberal (Democrats/Harris). Both the news bulletins and shows on television channels openly cater to their viewers’ preferred ideologies.
With no consensus on whether or not to endorse in presidential elections, it is obvious that there are great arguments for and against it. Some journalists and readers have reacted angrily to the no-endorsement stand. At the Washington Post, (where I worked as the Alfred Friendly Press fellow in 1999), staff columnists have been critical of the publisher’s decision (credit to the publisher for allowing them to criticize the management in the newspapers own pages). At LA Times, a few journalists have quit, and many readers have cancelled their subscriptions.
There are different reasons being attributed to the no-endorsement decision, with the most damning ones suggesting that the billionaire owners (of WaPo and LA Times) don’t want to get caught on the wrong side of any incoming administration. In fact, one columnist at WaPo goes on to warn that this decision is akin to letting journalism die in the darkness of cowardice. (WaPo’s slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.)
To my mind, the endorsement debate is just technical. Once a newspaper has laid out day after day the pros and cons of the presidential candidates, then it’s obvious who the better choice is—as per the newspaper. But if the newspaper doesn’t want to sign off on a candidate formally, then it should be free to do so.
Ultimately, every voter—whether a reader of the newspaper or not—will decide on the ballot based on their own views and understanding of how such a candidate impacts their lives. What I find heartening as a journalist who has worked in the US and India, and across media (print, tv and digital) is that print newsrooms have it in them to sweat over such issues—especially at a time when social media lives by almost no rules.
